In a rare and unprecedented development, Yashwant Varma has resigned from his position as a judge of the Allahabad High Court while facing impeachment proceedings linked to a major cash recovery controversy at his Delhi residence.
Justice Varma submitted his resignation to Droupadi Murmu, stating in his letter: “While I do not propose to burden your august office with the reasons which have constrained me to submit this missive, it is with deep anguish that I hereby tender my resignation… with immediate effect.”
The controversy traces back to March last year, when a fire at his Delhi residence reportedly led to the discovery of large stacks of cash, triggering nationwide attention. Justice Varma has consistently denied the allegations, asserting that no such cash was recovered from his home.
Following the incident, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna took cognisance and constituted a three-member inquiry panel on March 22 to investigate the matter. Shortly thereafter, on March 24, the Supreme Court of India transferred Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court and directed that he be assigned no judicial work.
On May 3, the inquiry panel reportedly found him guilty of misconduct and recommended his removal. With Justice Varma refusing to step down, the Chief Justice wrote to both the President and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, initiating the process for impeachment.
Impeachment Process and Political Backing
On July 3, 2025, the government formally began gathering signatures for a motion to remove Justice Varma, with broad support from major political parties. In August, Om Birla constituted a three-member inquiry panel under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The panel included Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Maninder Mohan, and senior advocate BV Acharaya. Justice Varma challenged the panel’s validity before the Supreme Court, but his plea was dismissed, allowing the inquiry to proceed.
Notably, no judge in India has ever been successfully impeached, making the proceedings against Justice Varma particularly significant. The parliamentary panel was expected to submit its findings during the monsoon session.
Legal Context: Judicial Immunity Under Scrutiny
The case has also renewed focus on judicial immunity in India, particularly a landmark 1991 ruling by the Supreme Court that affords constitutional court judges protection from criminal proceedings without prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
Under this framework, no FIR can be registered against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge without the CJI’s approval—an exceptional safeguard intended to preserve judicial independence.
What Happens Next?
Justice Varma’s resignation effectively halts the impeachment process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, bringing an abrupt end to one of the rarest disciplinary proceedings against a sitting judge.
However, his exit from the bench also removes the constitutional shield that previously protected him from direct criminal prosecution. As a former judge, he is no longer entitled to judicial immunity, meaning investigative agencies may now initiate criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged cash recovery case.
The development marks a pivotal moment in India’s judicial and constitutional landscape, raising important questions about accountability, judicial independence, and the mechanisms governing the higher judiciary.
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.